In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Our "Assault Rifles" are probably toast.
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
As all of you know (if you don't know, then you don't deserve your gun rights) US Rep Karen McCarthy is attempting to get her latest "assault weapons" ban gun ban bill passed in the House. My personal opinion is that it will get passed in the house, then the senate and then either signed into law by President (remember in 2004 he publically stated he would sign the reauthorization of Clinton's 1994 assault weapons ban if it reached his desk?) or if he vetos it, the gun hating( only in the hands of civilians) Democrats (and some Republicians) will vote to override Bush's veto and the ban will become law. Only this time with no sunset provision as was the case in 1994.
So, not only do I believe we will get the ban, but without the sunset provision, it will never go away. But frankly, I don't care anymore. The ban will allow people like me, who already own as many "assault rifles" and high cap mags as I want, to keep them. We just cannnot ever sell them. But at least my family and I can enjoy owning and shooting "assault rifles" in spite of the ban. And frankly I am tired of, for years, my family and I along with only about 5% of America's gun owners spending time, money and effort fighting for gun rights while the vast majority of gun owners do little or nothing to help.
And some good might come out of the ban being imposed on peaceful, lawful gun owners. Maybe those approximately 80 million gun owners who do absoutely nothing to try and save their gun rights will finally hear the wakeup call and get active. For example, the 4 or 5 national gun rights organizations we have had fighting for our gun rights have been starving for members and funds for decades. If even half of America's gun owners would do nothing but pay the measly yearly membership fee and join a couple of those organizations, and thereby swell the membership roster of those organizations, that alone would frighten many of those anti-gun politicans into being afraid to support new gun bans that do nothing but disarm lawful gun owners.
If we had one or two national pro-gun rights organizations with a huge membership list of about 50 million members, we would have few, if any, anti-gun problems. And we might even be able to get our "assault weapons" back.
So, not only do I believe we will get the ban, but without the sunset provision, it will never go away. But frankly, I don't care anymore. The ban will allow people like me, who already own as many "assault rifles" and high cap mags as I want, to keep them. We just cannnot ever sell them. But at least my family and I can enjoy owning and shooting "assault rifles" in spite of the ban. And frankly I am tired of, for years, my family and I along with only about 5% of America's gun owners spending time, money and effort fighting for gun rights while the vast majority of gun owners do little or nothing to help.
And some good might come out of the ban being imposed on peaceful, lawful gun owners. Maybe those approximately 80 million gun owners who do absoutely nothing to try and save their gun rights will finally hear the wakeup call and get active. For example, the 4 or 5 national gun rights organizations we have had fighting for our gun rights have been starving for members and funds for decades. If even half of America's gun owners would do nothing but pay the measly yearly membership fee and join a couple of those organizations, and thereby swell the membership roster of those organizations, that alone would frighten many of those anti-gun politicans into being afraid to support new gun bans that do nothing but disarm lawful gun owners.
If we had one or two national pro-gun rights organizations with a huge membership list of about 50 million members, we would have few, if any, anti-gun problems. And we might even be able to get our "assault weapons" back.
Comments
Many of these new Democrats in Congress are at least nominally pro-gun.
Do you honestly think that the Democrats have forgotten what happened the last time that they pulled this crap? Do you honestly think that the Democrats will try this, knowing how hotly contested the 2008 elections will be?
Many of these new Democrats in Congress are at least nominally pro-gun.
The assault weapons ban is on the table and being offered as a new bill with about 36 co-sponsers. It appears to me the Democrats are "trying this".
But I like your positive attitude.
quote:Originally posted by Wehrwolf
Do you honestly think that the Democrats have forgotten what happened the last time that they pulled this crap? Do you honestly think that the Democrats will try this, knowing how hotly contested the 2008 elections will be?
Many of these new Democrats in Congress are at least nominally pro-gun.
The assault weapons ban is on the table and being offered as a new bill with about 36 co-sponsers. It appears to me the Democrats are "trying this".
But I like your positive attitude.
Well, I first heard about this over a month ago, and have heard very little about it in the news since then. As far as I know, it is still in committee. If this has a serious chance of passing, why haven't we seen a lot more coverage?
The Republicans have 49 Senators, and there are at least a few pro-gun Democrats in the Senate. All that our side needs for a fillibuster is 40 Senators.
P.S. A far more likely scenario is that the Democrats will try this for real in 2009, if they get someone in the White House and increase their presence in the Senate.
I am grateful that I now have a second chance. If this new AWB is passed then I will surely be buying an AK or the like before the ban goes into effect.
But I truly feel sorry for those youngsters out there that don't know their head from their * yet, and may not get the second chance like I did.
I am grateful that I now have a second chance. If this new AWB is passed then I will surely be buying an AK or the like before the ban goes into effect.
Typically, how long is the time span between passage and going into effect?
quote:But I truly feel sorry for those youngsters out there that don't know their head from their * yet, and may not get the second chance like I did.
Indeed. I was only 16 the first time around, and am also grateful to have a second chance now. I just bought a FN FAL, which, though technically a battle rifle, is considered an "assault rifle" according to this female dog's bill.
I was 18 when the 1994 ban was passed. I didn't know my head from my * at the time, and certainly had other priorities than buying an "assault rifle".
I am grateful that I now have a second chance. If this new AWB is passed then I will surely be buying an AK or the like before the ban goes into effect.
But I truly feel sorry for those youngsters out there that don't know their head from their * yet, and may not get the second chance like I did.
Fair points and all, but many of those youngsters, when asked to contribute just a tiny bit to the pro-gun rights battle, will whine about how "strapped" they are on time and money, etc. Yet they seem to be able to afford a computer, internet service, have plenty of free time to surf the net, often own a nice car, guns and ammo, etc.
Yet they will cry about how they just aren't able to help with the gun rights war. Geez, if even half of America's gun owner would just pay a lousey $20.00 to GOA and swell their membership rolls to 40 million members, GOA could go into congress, kick * and take names.
But sadly, most of our fellow gun owners are lazy, cheap and apparently not very smart.
Gun groups have attached themselves, for the most part, to the republican party. This was a great idea while the repubs had congress, but the GOP is looking like its going to get taken to the woodshed in '08, along with us......We should have been fighting in the courts all along.
Look at the ACLU. It has approximately 1/8 of the NRA's membership and its scores victory after victory, even in the most ridiculous of court cases.
By relying on Congress, we submit ourselves to the will of the majority. My friends, we are a distinct minority....70% of Americans are for an assault weapons ban. That number is only going to get worse.
Either we go for broke now and push case after case after case into the court system or we slowly watch our rights disappear.
Interesting. It's been a month and a half, and the bill is still in the "introduced" stage (the next stage being the "scheduled for debate" stage). Furthermore, there are no cosponsors.
I think that this is a good sign. Thoughts?
Click on....
"View or subscribe to tracked events for this bill."
It's on the left side of the screen, at the site Wehrwolf posted.
I'm watching several bills.
None have made it passed being "Introduced"......so far.
[8D][8D][8D]
A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
NRA write your Rep. will save a stamp
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/home/
GOA
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
I think groups like GOA are fighting the right battles, but with the wrong methods....
Gun groups have attached themselves, for the most part, to the republican party. This was a great idea while the repubs had congress, but the GOP is looking like its going to get taken to the woodshed in '08, along with us......We should have been fighting in the courts all along.
Look at the ACLU. It has approximately 1/8 of the NRA's membership and its scores victory after victory, even in the most ridiculous of court cases.
By relying on Congress, we submit ourselves to the will of the majority. My friends, we are a distinct minority....70% of Americans are for an assault weapons ban. That number is only going to get worse.
Either we go for broke now and push case after case after case into the court system or we slowly watch our rights disappear.
NRA and the other groups are party neutral . They have to many democRATS as members . I know many off them . They go to church , pro choice , pro gun , and because of a union or family . They vote for the very people that want to take there gun away. They are unable to see past how much these people will give them back out of your tax dollars .[8D][8D][8D]
A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
NRA write your Rep. will save a stamp
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/home/
GOA
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
That having been said, we still need to continue to fight these laws. Don't give up just yet. I've seen how hopeless our fight can become, and even I have no plans of giving up.
I am hearing (gun shop gossip -- don't bank on it) that the several bills in the House are more of an effort to "grandstand," and not really intended to go anywhere. The individual legislator can then say "we tried, but those dang Republicans stopped us." Even if true, that doesn't make me feel any safer. The wife and I plan to buy a couple tactical semiautos (they are NOT assault rifles) this year, just in case. Besides, why wait?
All will work out in the end, but I don't know what we will endure before that happens.
It makes little sense to me to whine about people attacking rights you aren't exercising!!!
Just a correction, tr. This ban does have a 10 year sunset clause; it won't be permanent.
That having been said, we still need to continue to fight these laws. Don't give up just yet. I've seen how hopeless our fight can become, and even I have no plans of giving up.
I of course hope you are correct but I do not believe you are.
AW bans are the best thing that ever came down the pike for sales . The Clinton's AW ban sold more AW than anything ever did . People that never wanted one now own 3 or 4 of them . There is nothing that will put a smile on the face of a new shooter faster than a 30 round mag in a AR and tell then to have fun.
[8D][8D][8D]
A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
NRA write your Rep. will save a stamp
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/home/
GOA
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
some good logic and truth there.
Gentlemen,
I am hearing (gun shop gossip -- don't bank on it) that the several bills in the House are more of an effort to "grandstand," and not really intended to go anywhere.
Indeed, does this not seem to be the case, especially in light of the fact that the bill has not moved in the month and a half since introduction, there are no cosponsors, and no one on either side seems to be even paying any attention to the bill?
Come get 'em, if you can. You'll find I don't "take" so easy!!!
Changed size of photo.
quote:Originally posted by River Rat
Gentlemen,
I am hearing (gun shop gossip -- don't bank on it) that the several bills in the House are more of an effort to "grandstand," and not really intended to go anywhere.
Indeed, does this not seem to be the case, especially in light of the fact that the bill has not moved in the month and a half since introduction, there are no cosponsors, and no one on either side seems to be even paying any attention to the bill?
quote:Originally posted by River Rat
Gentlemen,
I am hearing (gun shop gossip -- don't bank on it) that the several bills in the House are more of an effort to "grandstand," and not really intended to go anywhere.
Indeed, does this not seem to be the case, especially in light of the fact that the bill has not moved in the month and a half since introduction, there are no cosponsors, and no one on either side seems to be even paying any attention to the bill?
NO CO-SPONSORS? Sorry but you are very wrong. HR 1022 was introduced on 2/13/07. It is now in the House Judiciary Committee. It has 33 sponsors to date. Go to www.thomas.gov and enter HR 1022 into the search box. You can track any bills progress. Below is a current list of the co-sponsors:
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 3/7/2007 Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 3/13/2007
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 3/9/2007 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 3/7/2007 Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 3/13/2007
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 3/13/2007 Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 3/9/2007
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 3/7/2007 Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/7/2007
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 3/7/2007 Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 3/13/2007 Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 3/7/2007
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 3/22/2007 Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 3/15/2007
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 3/15/2007 Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 3/7/2007
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 3/13/2007 Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 3/13/2007
Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 3/7/2007 Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 3/9/2007
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 3/7/2007 Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 3/13/2007
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 3/22/2007 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 3/7/2007
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 3/7/2007 Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 3/15/2007
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 3/13/2007 Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 3/15/2007
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 3/7/2007 Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 3/22/2007
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 3/9/2007
Well, people should be making a list, right now, and voting these people out at the earliest convenience, as they obviously don't think we are law abiding...
I wish that would happen. Sadly, Taxaschussetts, Kalifornistan, New York, are the primary cosponsors. Their sheep probably support them in this. [V]
quote:Originally posted by Wehrwolf
quote:Originally posted by River Rat
Gentlemen,
I am hearing (gun shop gossip -- don't bank on it) that the several bills in the House are more of an effort to "grandstand," and not really intended to go anywhere.
Indeed, does this not seem to be the case, especially in light of the fact that the bill has not moved in the month and a half since introduction, there are no cosponsors, and no one on either side seems to be even paying any attention to the bill?
NO CO-SPONSORS? Sorry but you are very wrong. HR 1022 was introduced on 2/13/07. It is now in the House Judiciary Committee. It has 33 sponsors to date. Go to www.thomas.gov and enter HR 1022 into the search box. You can track any bills progress. Below is a current list of the co-sponsors:
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 3/7/2007 Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 3/13/2007
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 3/9/2007 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 3/7/2007 Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 3/13/2007
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 3/13/2007 Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 3/9/2007
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 3/7/2007 Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/7/2007
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 3/7/2007 Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 3/13/2007 Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 3/7/2007
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 3/22/2007 Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 3/15/2007
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 3/15/2007 Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 3/7/2007
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 3/13/2007 Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 3/13/2007
Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 3/7/2007 Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 3/9/2007
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 3/7/2007 Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 3/13/2007
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 3/22/2007 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 3/7/2007
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 3/7/2007 Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 3/15/2007
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 3/13/2007 Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 3/15/2007
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 3/7/2007 Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 3/22/2007
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 3/9/2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022
Did you bother to read that before overreacting?
Edit: As of the day that I posted what you quoted, it said "none". So get off my back.
quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
Well, people should be making a list, right now, and voting these people out at the earliest convenience, as they obviously don't think we are law abiding...
I wish that would happen. Sadly, Taxaschussetts, Kalifornistan, New York, are the primary cosponsors. Their sheep probably support them in this. [V]
It is interesting to note that a disproportionate number of supporters are Jews (disproportionate because they make up 2-3% of the U.S. population). See www.kevinmacdonald.net for a highly scholarly discussion of this phenonmenon. On the other hand, children are allowed to carry uzis in Israel. This is a case of massive hypocrisy: wanting to control non-Jews and apply standards to them that they do not apply to themselves. Gun control if part of the Jewish plot for world domination.
I sincerely think that JPFO is a front group.
It is interesting to note that a disproportionate number of supporters are Jews (disproportionate because they make up 2-3% of the U.S. population). See www.kevinmacdonald.net for a highly scholarly discussion of this phenonmenon. On the other hand, children are allowed to carry uzis in Israel. This is a case of massive hypocrisy: wanting to control non-Jews and apply standards to them that they do not apply to themselves. Gun control if part of the Jewish plot for world domination.
I sincerely think that JPFO is a front group.
What would the JPFO be a front for? The JPFO makes the argument that gun control laws have lead to many genocides totaling over 170 Million dead citizens. This is a very pro-gun organization, if their writings represent their beliefs.
quote:Originally posted by Wehrwolf
It is interesting to note that a disproportionate number of supporters are Jews (disproportionate because they make up 2-3% of the U.S. population). See www.kevinmacdonald.net for a highly scholarly discussion of this phenonmenon. On the other hand, children are allowed to carry uzis in Israel. This is a case of massive hypocrisy: wanting to control non-Jews and apply standards to them that they do not apply to themselves. Gun control if part of the Jewish plot for world domination.
I sincerely think that JPFO is a front group.
What would the JPFO be a front for? The JPFO makes the argument that gun control laws have lead to many genocides totaling over 170 Million dead citizens. This is a very pro-gun organization, if their writings represent their beliefs.
The thing is, such a tiny minority of Jews support gun rights for non-Jews (that's why the Jews have had guns banned in Europe (except Switzerland), Australia, Canada, and are working on the U.S.), and historically, Jews have acted as one cohesive entity for promotiing their own self-interests (see Professor MacDonald's website, above), that I find it very unlikely that this group is sincere. More likely, they are a group designed to make the goyim (ancient Hebrew word meaning "cattle", that they still use today in reference to us) think "gee, even though a lot of prominent Jews like Feinstein oppose gun rights, not all Jews are like that".
The fact of the matter is, JPFO has publicly defended anti gun Jews like Feinstein and Schumer. This proves that their REAL agenda is to promote Jewish tribal interests. They have also spread utter bald faced lies about the Third Reich's gun policy; the Third Reich actually had MORE gun rights than its predecessor, the Weimar Republic.
The thing is, such a tiny minority of Jews support gun rights for non-Jews (that's why the Jews have had guns banned in Europe (except Switzerland), Australia, Canada, and are working on the U.S.), and historically, Jews have acted as one cohesive entity for promotiing their own self-interests (see Professor MacDonald's website, above), that I find it very unlikely that this group is sincere. More likely, they are a group designed to make the goyim (ancient Hebrew word meaning "cattle", that they still use today in reference to us) think "gee, even though a lot of prominent Jews like Feinstein oppose gun rights, not all Jews are like that".
The fact of the matter is, JPFO has publicly defended anti gun Jews like Feinstein and Schumer. This proves that their REAL agenda is to promote Jewish tribal interests. They have also spread utter bald faced lies about the Third Reich's gun policy; the Third Reich actually had MORE gun rights than its predecessor, the Weimar Republic.
I agree that Jews are generally united. It may be possible that JPFO really is trying to support our rights, however. They made the excellent documentary Innocents Betrayed, and publish very pro-gun books. Even if they were a front for something, you have to admit that they are doing some good for the pro-gun people.
quote:Originally posted by Wehrwolf
The thing is, such a tiny minority of Jews support gun rights for non-Jews (that's why the Jews have had guns banned in Europe (except Switzerland), Australia, Canada, and are working on the U.S.), and historically, Jews have acted as one cohesive entity for promotiing their own self-interests (see Professor MacDonald's website, above), that I find it very unlikely that this group is sincere. More likely, they are a group designed to make the goyim (ancient Hebrew word meaning "cattle", that they still use today in reference to us) think "gee, even though a lot of prominent Jews like Feinstein oppose gun rights, not all Jews are like that".
The fact of the matter is, JPFO has publicly defended anti gun Jews like Feinstein and Schumer. This proves that their REAL agenda is to promote Jewish tribal interests. They have also spread utter bald faced lies about the Third Reich's gun policy; the Third Reich actually had MORE gun rights than its predecessor, the Weimar Republic.
I agree that Jews are generally united. It may be possible that JPFO really is trying to support our rights, however. They made the excellent documentary Innocents Betrayed, and publish very pro-gun books. Even if they were a front for something, you have to admit that they are doing some good for the pro-gun people.
Do you admit that it's awfully suspicious that they make such a big deal out of being Jews who actually support gun rights?
Do you admit that it's awfully suspicious that they make such a big deal out of being Jews who actually support gun rights?
It is somewhat suspicious. After all, if I were to start a group called Christians for Preservation of Firearms Ownership, they'd ask why it's so important to be considered a Christian group.
They may have an ulterior motive in proudly proclaiming their religion/ethnicity, but that doesn't change the fact that they are always making pro-gun arguments.
quote:Originally posted by Wehrwolf
Do you admit that it's awfully suspicious that they make such a big deal out of being Jews who actually support gun rights?
It is somewhat suspicious. After all, if I were to start a group called Christians for Preservation of Firearms Ownership, they'd ask why it's so important to be considered a Christian group.
They may have an ulterior motive in proudly proclaiming their religion/ethnicity, but that doesn't change the fact that they are always making pro-gun arguments.
In other words, they are essentially admitting that there is an overwhelming Jewish tendency to argue for taking away guns from non-Jews. This gives tremendous support for the theory that there is a Jewish plot to take over the world.
In other words, they are essentially admitting that there is an overwhelming Jewish tendency to argue for taking away guns from non-Jews. This gives tremendous support for the theory that there is a Jewish plot to take over the world.
I used to have some reservations about JPFO, but I really like the article from their site:
http://jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
Edit: As of the day that I posted what you quoted, it said "none". So get off my back."
Edited by - Wehrwolf on 03/24/2007 12:45:30 PM
The first co-sponsor got on board on 3/7/07. I believe that was long before your post that I quoted.
In any case, I wasn't trying to tick anyone off. Just showing that this bill does have co-sponsors.
"Did you bother to read that before overreacting?
Edit: As of the day that I posted what you quoted, it said "none". So get off my back."
Edited by - Wehrwolf on 03/24/2007 12:45:30 PM
The first co-sponsor got on board on 3/7/07. I believe that was long before your post that I quoted.
In any case, I wasn't trying to tick anyone off. Just showing that this bill does have co-sponsors.
The day that I posted that, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022 claimed zero cosponsors.
quote:Originally posted by dsmith
quote:Originally posted by Wehrwolf
Do you admit that it's awfully suspicious that they make such a big deal out of being Jews who actually support gun rights?
It is somewhat suspicious. After all, if I were to start a group called Christians for Preservation of Firearms Ownership, they'd ask why it's so important to be considered a Christian group.
They may have an ulterior motive in proudly proclaiming their religion/ethnicity, but that doesn't change the fact that they are always making pro-gun arguments.
In other words, they are essentially admitting that there is an overwhelming Jewish tendency to argue for taking away guns from non-Jews. This gives tremendous support for the theory that there is a Jewish plot to take over the world.
You are as full of Sheet as a spring goose.
Define "tremendous support" would not anecdotal BS not be more accurate; I sure think so.
Many Jews are liberal, living in big cities, but they are liberal in no greater percentages than others in the same settings. Many are well educated, hard working people just like me; a lowly Christian. If the Jew decides that serving his country would be a good idea they would for the most part be in cities a democrat and liberal. Cities vote democratic, liberal and anti-gun by and large. If the Jew gets elected he most likely ascribes to the views of the voters that put him there. If the voters are anti-Gun there is probably a majority chance the Jew will be too.
I don't stand a snow-balls chance in hell of getting elected in a large city, I am pro gun, anti-abortion, anti-big city and think affimative action is called work. The voters there would never elect me.
I do however stand a good chance at election in the rural setting I live in.
Conversely; do you think an openly anti-gun Democrat stands a chance in hell of getting elected from a district in Montana? I think not.
Your "tremendous support" just got shot full of holes.
quote:Originally posted by Wehrwolf
quote:Originally posted by dsmith
quote:Originally posted by Wehrwolf
Do you admit that it's awfully suspicious that they make such a big deal out of being Jews who actually support gun rights?
It is somewhat suspicious. After all, if I were to start a group called Christians for Preservation of Firearms Ownership, they'd ask why it's so important to be considered a Christian group.
They may have an ulterior motive in proudly proclaiming their religion/ethnicity, but that doesn't change the fact that they are always making pro-gun arguments.
In other words, they are essentially admitting that there is an overwhelming Jewish tendency to argue for taking away guns from non-Jews. This gives tremendous support for the theory that there is a Jewish plot to take over the world.
You are as full of Sheet as a spring goose.
Define "tremendous support" would not anecdotal BS not be more accurate; I sure think so.
Many Jews are liberal, living in big cities, but they are liberal in no greater percentages than others in the same settings. Many are well educated, hard working people just like me; a lowly Christian. If the Jew decides that serving his country would be a good idea they would for the most part be in cities a democrat and liberal. Cities vote democratic, liberal and anti-gun by and large. If the Jew gets elected he most likely ascribes to the views of the voters that put him there. If the voters are anti-Gun there is probably a majority chance the Jew will be too.
I don't stand a snow-balls chance in hell of getting elected in a large city, I am pro gun, anti-abortion, anti-big city and think affimative action is called work. The voters there would never elect me.
I do however stand a good chance at election in the rural setting I live in.
Conversely; do you think an openly anti-gun Democrat stands a chance in hell of getting elected from a district in Montana? I think not.
Your "tremendous support" just got shot full of holes.
You just shot full of holes any benefit of the doubt you formerly deserved regarding your level of understanding of statistics.
If Jews make up 2-3% of the U.S. population, but make up double digit percentages of subversive and/or decadent movements like Communism, Feminism, gentile disarmament, etc., and own nearly 3/4 of the media and entertainment industries in this country, then something very fishy is definitely afoot, and speaking on the group level, rather than the individual level, is thus very appropriate. Even you spoke at the group level when you stated that Jews tend to live in large cities.
Would you care to go to Professor MacDonald's website and attempt a refutation of his extensive body of work?
In the crazy world of American politics, somehow gun rights got hooked up to a far-right agenda. That agenda includes things like opposition to abortion, a preference for financing government spending through deficits rather than taxation, unpopular military adventures like the Iraq war, and so on.
None of those other issues have anything to do with gun rights, but because the agendas align as they do, the only way to cast your vote for the 2nd Amendment is cast your vote in favor of those other positions at the same time. And the only way to cast your vote against a right-wing agenda is to vote against gun rights too.
The problem is that only 30% of Americans favor a right-wing agenda. Ergo, only a minority are going to vote in a way that protects our right to keep and bear arms.
If an weapons ban passes, we can thank the war in Iraq. It defies logic but that's the fact. It just so happens that party that has the better record on gun rights gambled in favor of that war and lost. As a result they lost congress and will probably lose the White House in '08.
If gun rights are to survive in this country, we are going to have to de-link them from an ultra-conservative agenda that will never appeal to more than a fringe of voters. We have to make our voices heard in both political parties. Voters should not have to choose between giving up their guns or supporting a endless budget deficits and a hopeless, militaristic foreign policy.
Wehrwolf, how are you making this determination?
quote:It is interesting to note that a disproportionate number of supporters are Jews
Wehrwolf, how are you making this determination?
Jews make up double digits percentages of both houses of Congress (while making up 2-3% of the U.S. population), and nearly every one of these Congress members are anti-gun. Would you like me to pull up the names of every Jew in Congress?